Considerable research in the past 30 years has accumulated regarding the academic and social functioning of youngsters with disabilities. Only in the past decade has there been sufficient special education research published from which meta-analyses and syntheses can be conducted. In this volume, seven sets of authors grapple with synthesizing the knowledge base on an array of critical topics in the field of special education. Among others, specific chapters include: * a synthesis of what is known about effective instructional grouping practices for reading. * an examination of the differences between students classified as learning disabled and other low-achieving students on a range of academic performance measures. * a review of effective instruction for English-language learners. * an examination of the research on behavioral supports for low-incidence special education populations. * a synthesis on how technology supports literary development, across the full spectrum of disabilities categories. These papers provide up-to-date, informative summaries of current knowledge and a base from which further venture into the critical area of instructional intervention in special education can occur.

"The primary purpose of the present study was to analyze subtest patterns on the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-Revised (WISC-R) in conjunction with three handicapped categories (Mentally Retarded, Specific Learning Disabled, and Seriously Behavior Disordered) and a non-handicapped group of low-achievers to examine whether each group differed significantly from each other group. In addition, an attempt was made to determine if each group had its own distinct profile of relative strengths and weaknesses on the WISC-R. The subjects who participated in the study were drawn from two elementary and a middle school within Riverside School District, a rural community set in northeastern Washington. All the subjects selected were currently enrolled in or previously referred for special education services. Selection criteria for each of the three handicapped groups and the low-achiever group were according to the Washington Administrative Code (1986/87) for education of handicapped children and were previously identified by the schools. The low--achievers did not meet the eligibility requirements for any of the handicapped categories, however, they were students who were having difficulty in the regular classrooms and whose teachers referred for assessment to determine if they were eligible for services. The 37 male and nine female subjects had an average chronological age of ten, ranging from six to fifteen. Their mean Full Scale IQ, excluding the Mentally Retarded group, was 94.7 with a range of 81-107. The mean Full Scale IQ of the Mentally Retarded group was 73, with a range of 66-78. Within each of the groups there was an even distribution according to age, grade, and size (Mentally Retarded N=11, Specific Learning Disabled N=12, Severely Behaviorally Disordered N=12, Low-Achievers N=11). Each of the subjects was randomly assigned to one of three qualified examiners if current WISC-R data were not available in the subject's special education file. The WISC-R was individually administered to each subject. All scores in the study were compiled from subjects' 11 subtest scores, mazes excluded. Three separate two by eleven mixed analyses of variance were used to compare the Specific Learning Disabled, Severely Behaviorally Disordered, and Low-Achiever groups with each other. Multiple comparisons between pairs of means, using the Lindquist (1953) critical difference procedure, was utilized, which employed the error term from each analysis. Since the comparisons among the interaction means were most directly relevant to the hypotheses being tested, multlple comparisons were carried out only among those 11 subtest means. Object Assembly and Block Design, with the Behaviorally Disordered group performing higher than the Low-Achiever group. To provide a more discriminative evaluation of the subtest patterns within each of the subject groups, based only on the variability within their 11 subtest scores, separate one-way analysis of variance were carried out for each of the four groups, as well as obtaining critical difference results. The three handicapped groups obtained a significant variance among tests (MR p